Justia U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The district court denied the habeas corpus petitioner's motion for permission to amend or resubmit his prior motion for equitable relief in the form of an "independent action in equity," as provided for in Rule 60(d)(1), the Rule 60 savings-clause provision. Such an action has no time limitation. Petitioner has been before the Federal Circuit four times in the past and that court affirmed the denial. Although petitioner had an incorrect adverse decision on a Batson claim, he cannot establish that this claim of error and the ensuing course of events subjected him to a grave miscarriage of justice, that enforcement of the judgment would be manifestly unconscionable, or even that this is a case of unusual and exceptional circumstances.

Three defendants, two prosecutors and the police chief, were convicted of possessing automatic weapons and making false entries on weapons application and transfer forms in violation of 28 U.S.C. 5861(d), 5861(l), and 7206(2). They made multiple false representations that the weapons were being purchased for law enforcement and were tax-exempt. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The court rejected a claim that the statutes clearly permit some governmental employees to possess and transfer automatic weapons, but are silent as to under whose authority that possession is allowed and were therefore, unconstitutionally vague. The court also rejected a claim of double jeopardy, alleging that the sections criminalize the same conduct. The court properly quashed certain subpoenas, refused to give a proposed public authority/ entrapment by estoppel defense instruction, and enhanced sentences based on the abuse of public trust.

Plaintiff contracted to purchase 11 Burger King restaurants. A jury found that defendant had properly terminated the agreement but had breached the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and awarded $190,907.27. Over one year later, the district court entered a partial judgment denying specific performance and awarding $5,176.24 of the $424,282.19 in attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in connection with the litigation. The Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded. The plaintiffs presented evidence that defendant hindered attempts to close the transaction, but defendant's actions in blocking due diligence and failing to provide financial information did not cause plaintiff damages because defendant properly terminated the agreement. The district court erred in calculating fees and expenses.

Defendant admitted violating the terms of his supervised release, following incarceration on charges of on the charge of conspiracy to distribute marijuana (21 U.S.C. 846), by engaging in acts of domestic violence. The district court sentenced him to 37 months' imprisonment, above the federal sentencing guidelines range of five to 11 months. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, stating that the district court sufficiently explained the rationale behind its sentencing decision with respect to his history, the nature of his offense, and the sentencing leniency he had already received.

The debtor was a member of an investment LLC, engaged in construction. In state court proceedings prior to the bankruptcy filing, the debtor entered a settlement agreement that included an agreement to pay the title company $241,500. The bankruptcy court held that the debt was nondischargeable based on a finding that the debtor obtained financial benefit as the result of fraudulent representations concerning the condition of title, satisfying the elements of 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(2)(A). The Sixth Circuit affirmed.

Defendant, convicted as a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)) appealed denial of a motion to suppress. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that under the totality of the circumstances, officers’ suspicions that the defendant was armed and a danger to them was reasonable. The detention and search occurred at a location where officers had been recently informed that a black man was selling drugs; defendant initially approached the officers in a calm way, but his demeanor subsequently changed once he realized they were police; defendant acted nervously, "like a deer at headlights;" defendant turned away from the officers as if to leave; and defendant frantically dug his hands into his pockets and would not remove them.

The district court denied the petitioner, facing the death penalty for murders in 1990, habeas corpus. The Sixth Circuit affirmed and denied a request to file a successive petition. Petitioner did not show that the Ohio Supreme Court’s rejection of his claims was contrary to, or involved unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court, or that it resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding. The court noted concerns: the case was not prosecuted until five years after the killings and there was no physical evidence to tie petitioner to the crimes; witnesses have recanted. This "worrisome scenario" is not enough to create a constitutional claim cognizable under habeas and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. Newly discovered facts--a cigarette butt with DNA belonging to another person who had a history with a victim-- and all the other evidence do not establish clearly and convincingly that a reasonable factfinder could not have found petitioner guilty.

The district court upheld the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, 26 U.S.C. 5000 A, which, among other things, the minimum coverage provision of the Act requires all applicable individuals to maintain minimum essential health insurance coverage or to pay a penalty. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, first holding that the plaintiffs had standing, that the case was not barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. 7421(a), and that the matter was ripe for judicial review. The provision is a valid exercise of the legislative power under the Commerce Clause; it regulates economic activity with a substantial impact on interstate commerce. The court rejected an argument that it regulates inactivity.

Plaintiff, the only female and the only African-American employee in a small office, alleged a sexually and racially hostile environment under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e. The district court found that plaintiff failed to file a document that meets the test for a "charge" with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on her claim of a sexually hostile work environment and, therefore, failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. The Sixth Circuit reversed in part, holding that plaintiff's first EEOC filing, a "Charge Information Form," satisfied the elements of a charge. Affirming rejection of the charge of racially hostile environment, the court stated that, although despicable, alleged racist statements are not sufficiently "severe" or "pervasive" standing alone to create a jury question.

The debtor did not pay his $2,902 bill for treatment of an infection, which was turned over to a collections agency. He made payments for several years. When the balance was at $536.35 the agency sued in Michigan court for $678.27, attaching to the complaint a document titled "Combined Affidavit of Open Account and Motion for Default Judgment." An agency employee then incorrectly told the debtor that he owned $1,016. The district court rejected the debtor's suit under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 15 U.S.C. § 1692e. The Sixth Circuit reversed in part, holding that the title to the document attached to the complaint could be misleading. The mistaken balance was not given as part of a collection effort and was not a violation of the Act.